WSJ's (Fox/NewsCorp) Alan Abelson calls for GOP to have "Less Bile. More Guile" :

[Faryn Balyncd]

The Republican Party, having long run off those who can no longer stomach authoritarian demagoguery, is left with two wings: true believers and pragmatists. Though the latter might not particularly care for the aesthetics the GOP's bread and butter hate-mongering, they tolerate is as a necessary evil for assembling a coalition (which depends on the support of many who do not share their economic particulars.)

In this week's Barron's (WSJ/NewsCorp), columnist Alan Abelson represents this pragmatic wing, as he calls for the GOP to heed recent public opinion, and, for the time being, beat a tactical retreat:

Tentatively, anyway, the inference to be drawn from his seeming revival in the public's esteem is that Obama is not a sitting duck, much less a putative lame one, and beating him in 2012 may not prove the piece of cake so many political soothsayers have smirked that it would be. Moreover, the shootings in Tucson and his rhetorical response to them suggest a tactical adjustment might be in order for the GOP: less bile, more guile.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970204555504576075911343422014.html?mod=BOL_hps_mag

(This portion of Abelson's column is behind a subscription wall...The NewsCorp editors, however, though enough of the last sentence that, in the print edition, they featured it by itself, as an insert, italicized.)




Conspicuously missing from Abelson's remarks was any hint that the GOP should change their approach because it was the right thing to do. Or any condemnation of tactics that include placing gunsights on a map od opposing districts, or of a candidate in one of these districts holding a political rally in which he offers the opportunity to “Shoot A Fully Automatic M16″ And “Remove Gabrielle Giffords”.




Also conspicuously absent was any indication by Abelson that he would even consider not supporting Republican candidates, regardless how vile.






Instead, Abelson limits himself to simple pragmatic advice to make a "tactical adjustment " in strategy.






In case the "Get a Brain, Moran" wing of the party might not comprehend Abelson's advice, here's a little help from Webster:

Definition of GUILE
1 deceitful cunning : duplicity
2 obsolete : stratagem, trick
— guile·ful \-fəl\ adjective
— guile·ful·ly \-fə-lē\ adverb
— guile·ful·ness noun

Examples of GUILE

1. <a shady salesman who usually relies on a combination of quick thinking and guile>
2. <a person so full of guile he can't even be trusted to give you the correct time of day>
3. By the end of Liebling's dispatch, Mollie has become a mythic figure invulnerable to death, capable of great feats of courage and guile, and able to transform himself into any human type for the purposes of disguise. —Lee Siegel, Harper's, December 2004
4. The going was painfully slow, but Chickenhound consoled himself on the long journey by boosting his own ego. “Maybe a silly bunch of rats could put one over on Sela. Huh, she was old and had lost a lot of her guile. Not like me! They hadn't reckoned with a smart intelligent young fox like I am.” —Brian Jacques, Redwall, (1986) 2002
5. Untrained human nature was not frank and innocent; it was full of the twists and defences of an instinctive guile. —Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, 1920
6. <+>more<->hide

Origin of GUILE
Middle English gile, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old English wigle divination — more at witch
First Known Use: 13th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guile

Abelson's amoral pragmatism indicates that he thinks it is now time to make a "tactical adjustment" to (but does not fundamentally disagree with) the 2001 Right Wing Strategy Manifesto "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement", which advised perhaps squeamish conservatives:

"We must be willing to take measures that perhaps we would be unwilling to take under different, more ideal circumstances.....


"It is not enough to say that conservative philosophy is more sensible than that of the Left. If we leave it at that, we will only attract "sensible" people to our movement. But "sensible" people do not go to the barricades, they do not make great sacrifices for a movement. And the experience of the conservative movement has shown this to be the case. We need more people with fire in the belly, and we need a message that attracts those kinds of people. As Plato said, "madness comes from God, whereas sober sense is merely human." We should keep this in mind if we expect our people to make superhuman sacrifices for the movement. We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms. Putting the debate in terms of mere freedom, the "leave us alone" mentality, does not inspire apocalyptic fervor".

"Some will argue that "conservatives" do not believe in apocalyptic fervor. The reader should simply ask himself, is he happy with the state of cultural conservatism in this country? If not, does he think it likely that conditions will improve in the future by operating according to the current rules?"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x205379

Abelson, to be clear, is NOT advocating that the GOP renounce inflamatory rhetoric, just that, under the present circumstances, they make a small "tactical adjustment".




It's sure reassuring to hear from "sensible Republicans" like Alan Abelson, isn't it?
:sarcasm:







:kick:

[indepat]

1. Seemingly anything/anyone associated with Murdick oozes bilious and vile bile

;)